Hello gfm7175,
The preamble is merely an introduction.
There is nothing 'mere' about it. The Preamble is *not* meaningless. It describes the intent of the document.
It is not an enumeration of any specific powers of the federal government. The federal government does not have the power to do whatever it wants so long as it claims that the action is "for the general welfare...".
Article 1 Section 8 lists very specific legislative powers that Congress has. Legislating beyond those enumerated powers (and as amended) is unconstitutional.
You will have to bring our attention to the precedent-setting case where Welfare was ruled unconstitutional based on that. We await your example to back up your 'mere' words.
No it [the economy] didn't [begin growing under Obama]. [Yes, it did] The economy was stagnant under Obama. [False] It is now thriving under Trump.
The economy was thriving under Obama. Trump merely took credit for it, and signed no legislation which had any bearing on it for over a year after taking office. Upon signing the permanent tax cut for the rich (and temporary tax cut for the rest,) the deficit began to balloon, and has now reached over a trillion dollars.
You might be surprised, but I do agree with you here. A lot of lobbying does indeed happen. Big businesses get quite intertwined in the federal government, seeking benefits for themselves.
I am not surprised at all. Nearly 90% of Americans (both parties) believe there is too much big money corrupting our government and getting special treatment.
But now ask yourself this... Why do you want to give the federal government even MORE power, FURTHER luring in these businesses to lobby the federal government? Why not instead significantly reduce the size and scope of the federal government so that people aren't so influenced to lobby it?
That won't work. Republicans have attempted to do that every time they get power, and it has never worked in the past. It is foolish to pretend that repeating the same approach will ever get a different result.
Those businesses get attracted by the size and power of the government, and want to get their share of kickbacks from it... If we would instead significantly reduce the size and scope of the federal government (back to Constitutional levels), then this lobbying problem would solve itself and virtually go away.
That is a total myth. I presume by 'back to constitutional levels' you mean you want a government the size of the one we had in 1776. That won't work because the USA has grown so much larger since then, and technology has introduce so many new problems issues and concerns since then. A larger more complex nation requires a larger more complex government. Basic logic.
By wanting more regulations and more centralized power, you are only further incentivizing these businesses to lobby the federal government for kickbacks. You are only making the problem worse.
You have misidentified the problem. The big money influence over government PRODUCES larger government. It is a self-replicating disease. The only way to solve that is for conservatives and progressives to unite on this common issue that we all support and take meaningful action which is known to produce results. Local changes leading to State changes leading to Federal change. That is how progress works. Hoping to get Congress to vote against that which gives powerful Congress members their power is like asking the fox to put a lock on the hen house.
So what? Whether temporary or not, one is still receiving a tax cut. One is still paying less than they would've paid.
And the government is still going bankrupt by not collecting enough revenue. And it will get worse when the temporary tax cut expires. We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. That is not sustainable. It is irresponsible.
This is simply denying history. Both parties have been absolutely and equally abysmal with regard to the national debt.
Then it follows there will be no party-endorsed solution. Basic logic.
For like one year of his eight years in office... and remember that the House at that time was Republican controlled. It was a Republican initiated budget found acceptable by a Democrat President. It wasn't all Clinton's doing; to be fair, you need to credit the Republican controlled House as well and remember that Clinton didn't oversee a surplus during most of his time in office, and that the national debt was higher after he left than it was when he started, just like every other President since somewhere around the FDR days.
You can believe whatever theory you want about what created that surplus but the essence of the argument was it was done. That means it is not hopeless, and it is entirely possible to control government spending. The deficit has not been 'spiraling out of control for decades.' The debt has. The deficit has gone up and down during that time.
No, price discovery is what is correct about it. One is worth what they are worth and what they make themselves worth. One is not entitled to be worth a lot simply because they are breathing.
That is the type of policy which leads to dangerous extreme wealth inequality. The problem with capitalism-only fans is that they do not see extreme wealth inequality as a problem. They simply do not understand the danger of having a society in which people either have a lot or have virtually nothing. The danger being, of course, that the people who have nothing are going to cause trouble and possible revolt. That would lead to the demise of the United States. We must try to create a nation in which all people are happy, one which Promotes the General Welfare, one which ENSURES DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. Those are not meaningless words. The preamble is not meaningless. It is wisdom, and we had better try to live up to that wisdom.
No, my response followed just fine... You mentioned "wealth inequality" as an issue that needs to be fixed. It sounds like you want to then make wealth equal, since wealth not being equal is an issue according to you.
You can try to interpret my posts any way you like, but you have to admit that if something is in dispute, I am the one to tell you what I meant. I usually try to add the modifier 'extreme,' when describing the problem of growing wealth inequality. Please don't get sidetracked into semantics, here. I reserve the right to clarify my positions. I understand there is going to be wealth inequality. That only makes sense. What doesn't make sense is a policy which does not fulfill the preamble's wisdom of establishing a document which is meant to ensure domestic tranquility. You can't have domestic tranquility when a significant proportion of the populace feels that caring or trying are hopeless.
No, it is a failure of the individuals who refuse to make themselves worth more money. Minimum Wage jobs are not meant to be careers. They are meant to be somewhere to start off.
That's just blaming the poor for their own inability to circumvent a system which is heavily stacked and rigged against success. Please show where the minimum wage law is meant to apply only to beginning worker jobs. If you can't then your theory is flawed.
Mostly agreed, especially the bolded. A nuclear family unit is very important, and oft gets overlooked. This is where ideas that many conservatives preach (such as abstinence until marriage) become quite applicable.
But that is not a sound basis for policy. It amounts to an 'I told you so' moment, which solves nothing. And conservatives have NOTHING to stand on in regards to family values now. Trump has destroyed that handily for Republicans with his policy of family separation.
Health care is not a right. [But it should be] It would effectively require certain people to provide a service while being held at gunpoint.
I know of plenty of people who say that, but none of them only pay their taxes when forced to at gunpoint.
The context was discussing health care being a right, not taxes. But taxes do work in the same way. What happens if one doesn't pay their taxes?
They become a Republican president.
It [an inadvertent sleight] happens. I just wanted to be clear about what I actually said.
No problem. Quite understandable.
Fair point, and I do agree, but when I said 'professional musicians' I was thinking more along the lines of people like Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, AC/DC, etc... I didn't clarify that very well.
I actually got that, but just wanted to make a point. It's like going to a restaurant. Most people understand the server works primarily for tips and oblige, but most people don't get that same concept about the musician who is entertaining them. We should all understand that if we go out for a nice meal with entertainment the custom needs to be that we tip not only the server, but drop something in the singer's tip jar as well. They are working just as hard as the server (actually they probably work harder. Between all the time and money spent to actually bring you that performance, they are not usually even paid enough to live on, despite putting in a full time effort. They have to buy equipment, practice their performance, load equipment, commute, and set up - before they can even begin to entertain you. Then, after you are gone, they are going to tear it all down, pack it up, drive home, then unload it all. Most people have no idea what goes into that performance. If you enjoy what they do, and you can't even drop a buck in the tip jar, you are a cad.)
I've seen this happen, even in lower positions. Networking is quite important. People can often benefit (a lot of times undeservingly) simply by "knowing the correct people".
Knowing the right people often is something that comes with being born into the right family.
Fair enough. We probably actually agree quite a bit on what is a problem and what isn't a problem, but rather, we disagree about how to best address those problems. In other areas though, I think we have fundamental differences about the type of country that we want America to be.
Agreed. And this understanding is what differentiates you from hard right conservatives. I place you as a right-leaning moderate, and myself as a center-leaning liberal. So we're not that far apart on some things. The hard right refuses to recognize problems, denies facts, specifically because if they did admit to some of those problems, the rather obvious solution is the liberal one, so they simply refuse to admit it is a problem. Deny facts, so that there is no basis for a rational discussion. Instead, they tend to argue with 'whataboutism.' If something is brought up that they can't deny, they simply deflect. I appreciate that you don't do that.
Yeah, I can't say that I am perfect about that either.
Nobody's perfect. Which is why so many Trump fans are so badly mistaken in pretending that he is.
The other issue is that people are living longer... I agree with the government corruption, but I can't fathom why people want to increase the size and power of government, thus making it even MORE prone to corruption.
Well, you know we disagree on that. Federal change happens gradually, and needs to begin at the local level. Big money has corrupted our government, and the cause has nothing to do with the size of government. The reason so many Americans are apathetic about political involvement, being informed, participating in the representative process is that they believe their voice has no bearing on what government does. They are actually correct. If a measure is very popular with the people it has about a 30% chance of being enacted into federal law. If a measure is extremely unpopular with the people, it sill has about a 30% chance of being enacted. But for the rich, it's all different. If a measure is popular with the rich, it stands a far greater chance of being enacted by Congress. But if it is unpopular with the rich, it stands a near-zero chance of being enacted. The rich get their way, the rest have a near-zero influence on government policy. A coalition of conservatives and progressives are working to change that by building a movement from the local level on up. Here's how it works:
Represent.us
